Who are Obama and Hagel to Preach 'Responsibility'
to China? (People's Daily, China)

Has the United States lost the credibility to decide what
nations are responsible, and which ones are not? This editorial from the
state-run People's Daily asserts that
after all of its global misbehavior and double standards, Washington is in no
position to lecture the People's Republic of China on 'responsibility' in the
South China Sea or anywhere else.

Lieutenant General John Wissler, commander of Marine expeditionary forces in Japan, remarked recently that he would quickly retake the Senkaku island group and return it to Japan if China were to invade. Beijing is none too pleased by the statement.

During his speech at National
Defense Universityearlier this month, U.S.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was at pains to show
that America's "rebalancing strategy" in the Asia-Pacific is not
intended as a move to contain China. Hagel said that
the United States welcomes the rise of a prosperous, strong, and responsible
China, which is in the American interest. In recent years, these words have
been repeatedly uttered by U.S. politicians. While they welcome China's rise, they
say the country should be "responsible." The implication is that
China has yet to become a responsible country. On what issues is China irresponsible?
They don't say, but what they mean is China's establishment of an Air Identification
Zone in the East China Sea, and China's active stance in the East and South
China Seas.

The
fact, however, is that every country has a right to designate Air Defense Identification
Zones. Indeed, it was the United States that first introduced the idea. The
disputes in the East and South China Seas were provoked by Japan and the
Philippines. America is fully aware that these countries bear responsibility
for their provocations. For conniving with these two countries and obscuring
the distinction between right and wrong, the U.S. should be held responsible
for any fallout.

The
U.S. might have a better chance of rallying others to its cause if it were to behave
like a responsible country itself. Unfortunately, the opposite is generally the
case. Not long ago, the United States blatantly ignored the sovereignty of
Granada and invaded that country, then invaded Panama to arrest the president
of that nation. A more recent example is the Iraq War. When U.N. weapons
inspectors said they had yet to verify their findings, the United States forced
them to withdraw, then, based on the pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of
mass destruction, it launched a war without authorization from the U.N.
Security Council. The war led to upwards of a million innocent civilian
casualties. This wasn't just irresponsible, it amounted to a war crime, and war
crimes charges have already been raised with the International Court of
Justice. However, the United States has so far failed to express even a
hintof remorse. Is that the way that a "responsible"
country should act?

On
the pretext of fighting terrorism, America has launched abusive drone strikes
in various countries around the Middle East and the horn of Africa without the consent
of the relevant governments. Without providing notice to Islamabad, U.S. Navy
Seals launched an incursion into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden
certainly deserved it, but did his crimes justify American disrespect for
Pakistan's sovereignty? Where is American "responsibility" toward the
international community reflected in these actions, which violate both the
sovereignty of other countries and established international norms?

America's
double standards are a reflection of its own irresponsibility. The most obvious
example is America's stance on Kosovo and the way its stance on the Crimea
referendum were diametrically opposite. This simply provided Russia with a justification
for its own excesses and its land grab in Crimea.

First,
in word and deed the United States is in no possible to rule on the irresponsibility
of others. Recently, as was noted, the U.S. Defense Secretary said that the U.S.
will not take sides in territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas.
On the other hand, though, it asserts that the Diaoyu
Island issue [aka/the Senkaku Islands issue] is covered
by the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. What's more, the U.S. commander [Lieutenant
General John Wissler] in Okinawa actually
announced publicly that he would therefore help seize the Diaoyu Islands [if they were invaded by China].

Posted By Worldmeets.US

The
White House claims that its "Asia rebalancing strategy" is for maintaining
peace and stability in the region, yet it overtly and covertly lends its support
to provocative actions by Japan and the Philippines. The U.S. has encouraged
the amendment of Japan's constitution, its military expansion and its lifting
of a ban on weapons exports. These irresponsible policies run contrary to the maintenance
of peace and stability in the Asia Pacific.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and his China counterpart, Defense

Minister Chang Wanquan, head for a press conference, after Hagel

arrived on his first
visit to Beijing as defense chief, April 8.

Obama
is on a four-nation trip in Asia. This will again offer people an opportunity
to observe whether the United States lives up to it claim to be a "responsible
country." Forecasting Obama's intentions won't be hard. The countries Obama
is visiting have multiple territorial disputes with China. Will Obama seek to
act like a peacemaker, or will he fan the flames? Given the recent divergence
between America's words and actions, there is little faith in Hagel's assurances that U.S.
policy is not intended to contain China. Let us watch and judge the U.S. by its
deeds.